S. 3: Investigation by Anti-Corruption authority though not authorised under the law does neither deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to hold trial nor vitiate the trial for want of jurisdiction in the Investigation Officer.
District Anti-Corruption Officer, Bakerganj, on certain information visited the stall of the accused, a licensed stamp vendor and recovered 61 suspected one rupee denomination court-fee stamps from his file and thereafter lodged F.I.R. with Kotwali P.S. and directed the Assistant Inspector of the Anti- Corruption Bureau to investigate into the case. The investigation was done by him in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. He submitted charge-sheet against the accused who was found guilty under sections 258 and 259 P.P.C. and was sentenced to three years R.I. On appeal it was contended that the trial of the accused was illegal because of the investigation into the case by an officer of the Anti- Corruption Bureau who had no authority to investigate into the case and as such this illegal investigation conferred no jurisdiction on the trial court.
Held: There is no doubt that the court which took cognizance of the offence suffered from no jurisdictional defect or want of jurisdictional authority in trying the accused because of the irregular investigation and collection of evidence against him by an authority who may not have been authorised to do so.
Before we part with this case we would like to observe that since the legislature has not empowered specifically the Bureau of Anti-Corruption to investigate and enquire into offences which was deliberately kept out of the Schedule to the Anti-Corruption Act of 1957, it was no function of the members of the Anti-Corruption Bureau to have investigated into the case. Abdul Karim Howlader Vs. The State. (1969) 21 DLR 871.
